Revision as of 11:22, 11 May 2007

	This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
India: History This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia This page is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Archives

Archive 1 - 02 Nov 2006

Move of name controversy and national character of rebellion

I've moved the name and character sections to the end of the article. Although the debates encapsulated within them are fascinating, and the discussion productive in terms of producing a good article, I felt that their placement at the head of the article was inappropriate.

To facillitate this, I renamed the "name" section to give it greater clarity in the contents, and - a minor edit - I've emphasised that Sepoy Mutiny is rarely used now as a general term to describe the conflict in the western media. (if used at all, it would probably be lower case, and used to describe individual rebellions by sepoy regiments, rather than the conflict as a whole).

Tomandlu 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion" are the most commonly used terms. They should go in the intro. I don't think "Sepoy Mutiny" was ever used very much. john k 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They "names" issue is addressed adequately in its section. Most Indians know it as the "War of Independence" - "Indian Mutiny" is a biased British POV. (Jvalant 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Jvalant, I understand your concerns (and largely agree - inserting some, but not all, names for the conflict at the top of the article is inappropriate, irrespective of which "side" such names favour), but please don't describe such edits as "vandalism". Tomandlu 10:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to an article should give the most familiar names. And who gives a fuck if "Indian Mutiny" is British POV - the British POV is the one that is known outside ths subcontinent, and that name is the way the damned thing is known everywhere else in the world. The general guideline is that alternative common names go in the intro. "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion" are the most prevalent names for the conflict. "War of Independence" has not even been demonstrated to be the most common name in India. We shouldn't confuse our readers out of misguided wishes not to "offend" by merely mentioning names that are not actually offensive. john k 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tempers getting frayed again I see. Whilst I think the title "First War of Indian Independence" is an absurd one, it is widely used in Indian school history textbooks and will be familiar to English-speaking Indian wikipedians (of whom there are a great many). It should therefore be included on the list of alternative names, as should "Indian Mutiny" which, as john k has pointed out in rather forceful language, is the most commonly-used name outside the Subcontinent (though much less widely used in academic publications than it used to be). Sikandarji 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that the article has a section devoted to discussion of the various names and controversies/reasons, can't we just leave all such references to that section? I take the point about "alternative common names", but, in this case, I think there are valid grounds against such an approach... apart from anything else, most articles won't have a section dedicated to the various names Tomandlu 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We certainly can't do that now that you've moved it to the bottom of the article. I would not object to adding a mention to the term "War of Independenc" or something similar to the introduction. The introduction is supposed to include mentions of all commonly used alternative terms that the reader might be familiar with. I think mentioning "Indian Mutiny," "Sepoy Rebellion," and "War of Independence" would more or less cover all our bases - the other versions are basically derivatives of one of these three terms, or else of the current title. john k 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, and agreed. I've added WOI... aargh! jvalant is up to his tricks again... sigh... Tomandlu 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This constant vandalism calling it an "Indian Mutiny" which is not used anymore except by a few racists, amounts to Nazis going on the page of the Holocaust and changing it to something they claim to be more "familiar with". Most books sold worldwide call it the "War of Independence", calling it anything else is mocking facts as it is. The issue of names is dealt with in the article. I would think that Misplaced Pages is also an educational resource; calling it an "Indian Mutiny" in the intro would mean that this name too is acceptable and perpetuating it. I can see why some would think that "Rebellion of 1857" is a neutral title, I don't. But I've to accept it for now. And since this constant edit happens over and over again, it is vandalism and nothing else. (Jvalant 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

This is patent nonsense - apart from anything else, you just removed a reference to it being called "First War of Indian Independence". Secondly, there is nothing inherently racist with regards to the term "mutiny" (I'm not even going to get into your absurd comparison with nazis and the holocaust).

You really are making a storm in a teacup here. I also am genuinely confused - on the one hand (afaik) you are quite happy to permit "indian mutiny" to appear in the names controversy section (albeit with a meaningless and inaccurate comparison), but then supress it when it appears under "common names" - if the name isn't common, why is it listed at all? If it is common, what is your problem? Tomandlu 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And there was I thinking you'd seen sense at last jvalant. "Indian Mutiny" may be inaccurate in many respects and is not favoured by academic historians any more, but it is not a racist term and it is still very widely used in English language publications all over the world. "War of Indian Independence" is only used in India and Pakistan. A search of the Bodleian Library's catalogue using that as the Title keyword brings up only eight books, all published in India, one of which is Savarkar's (discussed above), one of which refers to an uprising in Tamil Nadu in the early 1800s and another to an uprising in Orissa in the 1820s. Not only does it not have widespread recognition outside India (and no academic credibility within it), no-one can even decide which "war" it refers to. Meanwhile a similar keyword search for "Indian Mutiny" produces 140 titles published all over the world. You are not going to win this argument, and "Indian Mutiny" has to appear in the opening paragraph as the most common name for the Rebellion, alongside your preferred "War of Indian Independence". Sikandarji 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, having the name in the intro perpetuates its use - making it seem like a correct and acceptable term. Having it ONLY in the "name controversy" section shows that while there are many terms used, not all of them are correct and let's the reader come to his/her own conclusion. Secondly, why is the comparison with the Holocaust so absurd? I am not "quite happy" with it appearing in the article at all - however, I do realize that it is a term used by the Brits in colonial times and some people suffering from a colonial hangover till date. Either way, it is just not an acceptable term as it insults Indians. (Jvalant 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

It would be easier (or at least quicker) to compile a list of why the Holocaust comparison is not absurd, but in the first place, "mutiny" does not impart any particular character to either side - to take your holocaust analogy, it is more like a debate between "holocaust" vs. "genocide". Secondly, as a common historical term, it is not revisionist (not that revisionism is necessarily bad, but the distinction should be made). Thirdly, the comparison is deliberately provocative, implying a similiarity between the two events which does not exist. Anyway, all names are referenced in the naming controversy section, so let's try and let this v. minor issue rest.

Err, by the way was the term "colonial hangover" meant to be ironic? In any event, you seem to be the primary sufferer of that complaint... Tomandlu 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not meant to be ironic. But you are entitled to your absurd opinion :) (Jvalant 17:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

What is offensive about the term mutiny? There was a mutiny - Indian troops in British employ mutinied. The rebellion wasn't just a mutiny, but it's hard to deny that there was one. I don't see how this is particularly offensive to anyone. It might be somewhat misleading about the nature of the rebellion, but it doesn't strike me as particularly more misleading than "War of Independence," which seem to be a term based around retrojecting an anachronistic self-conscious modern nationalism into the 1850s. john k 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't it be considered BOTH a mutiny and a battle for independence? Technically, it was. The British Empire WAS real with real effects, so any rebellion by troops employed by them would be correctly a "mutiny". By the same token, a war for independence PRESUMES the existence of an imperial power. And a mutiny of indigenous troops, albeit employed by a foreign power, is by definition DEFYING the sovereign power of the empire, i.e. acting INdependenly of that power's wishes. Moreover, if this is seen historically as a significant event leading to an allout struggle for independence, then it properly belongs with it. Tmangray 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Indian Rebellion started with a military mutiny, when the sepoys refused their new rifles and rose up against the British officers? However, it did become more than a Mutiny, as the soldiers were joined by the civilian population. So it is wrong to term it 'The Indian Mutiny'. But in fact the name 'The First War of Independence' has never had any widespread scholarly acceptance; it is part of an overtly nationalisic projection of modern attitudes onto history.Sebrat 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, can you sort this out

Your edit:

"While in the Eastern world, it is commonly referred to as a "War of Independence", in the western world it is more commonly referred to as a mutiny or rebellion."

makes no sense. If you're going to capitalise "Eastern", please do the same for "western". If you want caps for "War of Independence", then please replace the "a" before it with a "the". Personally, I'd go back to just "war of independence" (no caps, no quotes) - the point (which I thought was your point) is that we are talking about the characterisation of the conflict, not about a pedantic and specific name.

Needless to say, I'd make the changes myself, but life's too short for the inevitable revert by you. Tomandlu 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did make the changes. However, I did remove the edit by NJW which claimed that "Eastern World" is too broad of a term. It is just as broad as "Western World". I hope that's ok. (User:Jvalant)

Doesn't worry me unless it's untrue - do you have any particular knowledge of how the conflict is described in, say, Thailand? However, since the whole tone of that particular section is bent towards ideological grand-standing, rather than a quest for accuracy, it probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. C'est la vie... Tomandlu 09:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't say that it is called that in "the Eastern World" unless we have some evidence that it's true. Which, at present, we do not have. We have no reason to think that people in Japan or China call it the "War of Independence." We should stick to what we know, which is that it's called the War of Independence on the Indian subcontinent. john k 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but then I'm pretty sure that I'm a racist imperialist, and probably a member of the KKK or something. The whole thing is pretty silly. Jvalant wants to ascribe a particular name to exclusive use by white imperialists (i.e. "Western") - he can only justify this absurdity by ascribing "War of Independence" to everyone else.

I'm vaguely hoping that he might blunder into the contradictions of his own claims and fix it. I'm certainly not going to enter into an edit war with him. Life's too short, and as long as the offending passage doesn't creep out of the name section I can live with it.

Alternatively, perhaps a few non-indian easterners might decide to fix it.... and I suppose there is the vague possibility that "war of independence" is the consensus in the eastern world...Tomandlu 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you all understand the reasoning behind my removal of the term "Eastern world", shame Jvalant does not seem to recognise such logic. If Jvalant wants to pursue his Indian nationalist ideology on Misplaced Pages then I suggst he does so on Hindi/Gujarati/Punjabi Misplaced Pages where the concept of a war of independence would probably be more readily accepted. NJW494 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't give you references from Thailand or China which call it the "War of Independence" - but perhaps you can give me references from Iceland, Slovakia or the Czech Republic which call it "The Indian Mutiny" which would justify the "Western World" comment. (Jvalant 10:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Uh, jvalant, afaik it is you who insists that "mutiny" is a "western world" thing. Can you please stop classifying these changes as vandalism (they are plainly not). If you don't agree, then find a suitable way of framing the disagreement in the context of the article and in an NPOV way - perhaps you could expand the names section to explain the nature of the controversy?

Uh, no. I didn't put in the comment that the "mutiny" is a "western world" thing; NJW did. I had put in the comment that while in India it is known as a "war of independence", the western media still uses the term Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Rebellion - which was as neutral as possilbe. NJW and his ilk claim that the entire "western world" uses the term "mutiny" which is gibberish to say the least - hence, my comment about the "eastern world" thing. (Jvalant 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

For the moment, I'll put in a request for comment - will you agree to abide by its outcome? Tomandlu 11:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NJW can perhaps put forth his viewpoints on the webpage of the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan - he is entitled to his opinion after all and his "Indian Mutiny" view would be more acceptable there. (Jvalant 10:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

What's the problem with calling it a mutiny? They were soldiers who disobeyed orders so I think that falls into the category of mutiny. Besides, you could only call it a War of Independence if they had won. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.115.253 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Outside opinion

It's high time for the editors here to archive the older parts of the talk page and open a request for comments. Remember, editing an encyclopedia isn't a matter of life and death. Best wishes, Durova 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Name of conflict

There is a bit of a storm in a teacup going on here - can anyone advise?

Basically, Jvalant has strong opposition to the term "Indian Mutiny", and will only allow it to feature in the names section, and only then when it is ascribed to the "Western world". His opinion is that the term is racist, and that the "Eastern world" uses the term "First War of Indian Independence"

He will revert any changes that contradict this view, and class them as vandalism. Tomandlu 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to remove it being called "war of independence" in the Eastern World - since it is not called a "war of independence" in the whole of the eastern hemisphere but only if "indian mutiny" is not associated with "Western World" since I have pointed out...it is not known as such in the entire western hemisphere. That's just plain double standards. (Jvalant 11:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

"indian mutiny" is a very common term - wouldn't it be better to accept that, and then to add a suitable NPOV paragraph to the names of conflict section explaining why some indians/pakistanis object to the term? And please, please stop referring to "vandalism" and the KKK - it really isn't helpful Tomandlu 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put in the comment that the "mutiny" is a "western world" thing; NJW did. I had put in the comment that while in India it is known as a "war of independence", the western media still uses the term Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Rebellion - which was as neutral as possilbe. NJW and his ilk claim that the entire "western world" uses the term "mutiny" which is gibberish to say the least - hence, my comment about the "eastern world" thing. (Jvalant 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) Jvalant 12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO "uses" does not imply exclusively "uses", and "western media" doesn't really make any sense either (why would the "media" insist on using a term unused by the general public?).

Can't we just say that "indian mutiny" is a common term, but that, in india and pakistan, it is increasingly viewed as objectionable, and that the term "war of independence" is preferred by many?

Oh, and also, retain it at the top of the article, with a short note referring the reader to the "names of conflict" section?

I strongly agree that the dispute is an interesting, if minor, part of the article, but it should be part of the article, rather than part of the editing process... ;) Tomandlu 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the comment you suggested in the names section. I don't think it is fine in the intro since it makes it seem that this term is acceptable (Jvalant 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm still in the dark as to why you think it's unacceptable (and racist) - it's "indian mutiny", not "curry-eating sub-humans mutiny" :) Since "indian" can't be racist, and "mutiny" carries no racial overtones, where does the racism come in? Even "mutiny" is not an exclusively negative action.

You might as well as object to the first world war being commonly called "the great war" on the basis that it wasn't so great. That said, surely a reference at the top after the usage to the names section (e.g. "(controversial - see Indian Rebellion of 1857#Debate over name of conflict)") should resolve the issue? Tomandlu 12:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of Conflict - Is Everyone Happy?

... or equally miserable in any event? Tomandlu 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Well, I was referring to the recent problems with the name of conflict section, and the inclusion of "indian mutiny" in the top section, rather than the old name-of-article debate (which, iirc, has been buried at the crossroads with a stake through its heart). Tomandlu 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I felt that if "The Indian Mutiny" required a comment at the top of the article then so did the "War of Independence". Personally I think such commentray is not required at all but if certain editors insist on portraying one name for the conflict in a bad light then their preferred name for the conflict must go in for some citical assessment. NJW494 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

... and the fun continues. I've slightly shortened your comment. I'm tempted to move the "Debate over name of conflict" section back to the top - the current name-dispute at the top is threatening to get out of hand. Can we all take a deep breath and repeat the mantra "this is an interesting but minor issue"... Tomandlu 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jvalant btw, and just out of curiosity, why doesn't "sepoy rebellion" get given a hard time? Tomandlu 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just mention the damned names in the intro, and worry about the politics elsewhere? I don't see why we need to humor Jvalant, who's a POV pusher with nothing coherent to contribute, as far as I can tell. john k 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree regarding additional comments in the intro, but it'll just mean an edit war with Jvalant. Personally, if it would shut Jvalant up, I'd be happy with the single reference after "Indian mutiny" in the intro, and an expanded explanation in the names section (the issue is, after all, not without interest), but NJW494 shot that one down.... Perhaps the time has come to leave well enough alone? Tomandlu 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A single reference after Indian Mutiny would be playing into Jvalant's hands. Better none at all, to be honest. NJW494 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

None at all would be my pref., but I'll settle for anything that will be accepted by all parties. C'mon - let's show we're bigger than Jvalant and let the baby have his bottle... Tomandlu 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that we're trying to build a credible encyclopaedia article, as such we can't give in to the demands of the lunatic fringe. NJW494 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We should be working to get Jvalant banned, not to humor his ridiculous nationalistic whims. His personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with him as a racist should on their own be sufficient to see him out of here. john k 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "let's launch some personal attacks on "the native", he has too much of a strong view and let's get him banned so that this serves as an example to all natives?" Why don't NJW and Kenney go burn some crosses or lynch someone instead in their elaborate gowns? Perhaps that will help them get over being kicked out of India or any other colony. They are the ones who need to be banned for parading their hate-mongering POVs in such a blatant manner. I don't see why an article in an encyclopedia has to be any more biased than it already is. This is fine for now. (Jvalant 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Of course we are the racists. Just because we're white people disagreeing with someone of asian descent means that we're card carrying KKK members. Its logical isn't it? We're obviously just disagreeing with you because of your skin colour rather than because you're a nationalist bigot intent on stirring up trouble and parading around with a chip the size of Bombay on your shoulder. NJW494 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NJW - that's a chip the size of Mumbai. john k 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you really expect such an evil racist to use the name "Mumbai". I guess my mind was just preoccupied with lynching preparations.NJW494 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No you are racist because as just illustrated, you deleted a reference I put in by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha - you just don't wish to accomadate anything that does not conform to your POV. Why delete a reference by the Speaker of the Indian Parliament? Could you please explain? (Jvalant 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

I mostly object to the systematic denigration of the term "Indian Mutiny" it is a valid POV, just as the "war of indpendence" is a POV. Neither of them should be promoted abov the other, unfortunately you are promoting the war of independence idea at the expense of another POV. That reference from the speaker of the Indian Parliament was nothing but point of view pushing. Something you seemingly do a lot. You see racism where there is none, and I am finding you to be a very offensive person, who needs to stop disrupting Misplaced Pages. NJW494 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, perhaps you would like to explain why "Indian mutiny" is a valid POV? You have never actually said why you think so. I have given my reasons umpteen times as to why "War of Independence" is in my opinion, a valid POV. (Jvalant 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

They are both valid Points of view, but Misplaced Pages is not a place to push your POV, especially at the expense of another. You just don't seem to understand that. NJW494 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jvalant I am more than willing to help ensure that all modern perspectives and controversies on the name of the conflict have a relevant place in the article (I would prefer that we had a bit more editing and improvement on the main content of the article, but that would take more research than the pointless grandstanding over the name, c'est la bleedin' vie). However, your recent edits push the limit. There is a valid place in Misplaced Pages for statements from the Indian parliament, and there may even be a place for them in this article. However, they should be used as a reference rather than as the stated position of the article. Surely you see that?

Your behaviour and attitude is becoming unsupportable - if you can't behave (and edit) reasonably, then I'll happily request a lock on the page until the issue can be resolved, which would be a shame. I'd like (as a minor project) to add a map showing the area of the conflict. I'd like to add a nice concise timeline of the conflict. Couldn't you also find a more productive way to use your considerable energies? Tomandlu 19:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone remove Jvalant's latest edit? I'd rather not breach the 3 revert rule. NJW494 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomandlu, - well, I would have absolutely no qualms about a speech by a British parliamentrian/politican put in the "names controversy" section where he states his reasons for it being an "Indian Mutiny." Surely, the views of the democratically designated Speaker of a billion people's view is extremely important in this section. NJW 'valid' POVs definitely should be mentioned - I don't dispute that for one minute. Perhaps you would like to tell me why you believe "Indian Mutiny" is a 'VALID' POV? Don't beat around the bush - just give me your reasons. (Jvalant 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

User:Jvalant - I thought I'd explained. It's like "The Great War". It's common and not demonstrably objectionable. There is a valid dispute as to whether this is a war of independence or a rebellion or mutiny, but facts are facts and war of independence is not the common name for the conflict any where except for the indian subcontinent.

On that basis, no one has to justify it as the most common term, or justify placing the term "war of independence" in the correct geographical context. WOI may be "right", but that still doesn't change anything. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper leader column. Tomandlu 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You really just don't get it, do you Jvalant? The Indian Mutiny and The First War of Independence are both valid POV, however what you are doing is giving undue prominence to one of them whilst rubbishing the other. They both have their place in this article, as equals, without the endorsement of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages must take the middle ground. You're skewing this article towards your POV, with heavily opinion based talks by Indian MPs chucked in to add your viewpoint credence. At the time, and for many years the idea of an Indian/Sepoy Mutiny was the prevailing view of this conflict, such views are still held by many thus making it a valid POV, but not one that should be givn pride of place in this article. This article is designed to give a version of events that is as neutral as possible, not to give Jvalant a place to push his worldview at the expense of others. This is wikipedia, it isn't your blog. NJW494 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what Tomandlu is doing, he is doing with the best of intentions. But I must question your motives, NJW. You called the POV of it being a "War of Independence" a myth - here is where - "12:25, 1 November 2006 NJW494 (Talk | contribs) m (The difference is that the West does have a common name for the conflict, whereas Eastern countries don't, the war of independence myth is generally confined to the subcontinent.." This was the reason for one of your edits. Err - why do you think this view is a myth?

And you honestly expect me to believe that you want this article to appear neutral?

Tomandly, I shall gladly agree to this speech not being part of the article, if you agree that quotes from the "I have a dream" speech is removed from the American Civil Rights movement page. After all, that too is merely POV pushing - isn't it? I am more than willing to remove my objections about your edits, if NJW can state candidly and lucidly why he thinks the Indian Mutiny POV is as important as the War of Independence POV. He just stated that Indian/Sepoy Mutiny WAS the prevailing view of the conflict. Sikanderji too has stated that "Mutiny" is archaic. So why precisely is he so insistent on it being given as much credence as the WOI POV? Reasons, please. (Jvalant 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

And Tomandly this is what you stated: "I thought I'd explained. It's like "The Great War". It's common and not demonstrably objectionable. There is a valid dispute as to whether this is a war of independence or a rebellion or mutiny, but facts are facts and war of independence is not the common name for the conflict any where except for the indian subcontinent." - This is a bit incorrect. The only dispute was for the words "rebellion" and "WOI" - the word "mutiny" was never part of the debate. (Jvalant 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

The Indian Mutiny is an archaic term, yet still used by many historians. The War of Independence is a nationalist myth. They are both POV, but not my point of view, they are both equally wrong in my eyes. To be honest stating much more than this would be fruitless. However they are both valid points of view that are held by many people, with the term "The Indian Mutiny" possessing more academic currency than the idea of a war of independence. It is however quite obvious that the conflict was not purely created by mutinous sepoys and it is also obvious that the conflict was in no way a genuine INDIAN war of independence, the absence of a national consciousness and th mix of motivations among the rebellious groups prohibiting the conflict being a war of Independence. I'd characterise the conflict more as a localised uprising personally, driven by religion, caste, discontent, greed, injustice and the influence of local rulers but not by the idea of Indian Independence. NJW494 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Still used my many historians" - which ones? Infact, who precisely was the last historian to call it a mutiny? Otherwise, you could provide references from books published in the recent past which call it a mutiny? (Jvalant 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

To quote the departed User:Mintguy from back at Talk:Indian Mutiny:

Most books (even very recently published books) on the subject use this name, for example (this is just from 2004) Our Bones Are Scattered: Cawnpore Massacres and the Indian Mutiny of 1857; Andrew Ward; pub. John Murray; published 2004; - The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination; (Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-century Literature & Culture); Gautam Chakravarty; published 2004; - The Indian Mutiny; John Harris (Wordsworth Military Library) 2004. Searching for other names used does not yield similar results. The CLASSIC work on this subject (published in 1980) is The Great Mutiny: India, 1857 by Christopher Hibbert.

He also provided a list of works by Indian and Pakistani authors that used mutiny in the title:

Books by Indian and Pakistani Authors -

• Mutiny and Its Aftermath Om Prakash(Ed) (1994)
• Indian Mutiny to Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy, 1857-1919 by S.R. Bakshi Dr. Sangh Mittra (2003)
• Indian Mutiny of 1857: An Annotated and Illustrated Bibliography by Vipin Jain (1998)
• Indian Politics Since the Mutiny by CY Chintamani (2002)
• The Indian Mutiny by Rudrangshu Mukherjee (scheduled for publication 2005)
• Freedom fighters of Indian Mutiny 1857 by M. P Srivastava (1997)
• The Indian mutiny of 1857 and the Sikhs by Ganda Singh (1969)
• The Indian Mutiny, 1857 by M. P Srivastava Chugh (1979)
• Indian Mutiny: 1857 in Bihar by Ritambhari Devi
• English Historical Writing on the Indian Mutiny 1857-1859 by Sashi Bhusan Chaudhuri(1979)
• Theories of the Indian Mutiny by Chaudhuri, Sashi Bhusan (1965)
• Novels on the Indian Mutiny by Shailendra Dhari Singh (1973)

Hope this is "helpful". john k 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I agree to Indian Mutiny being mentioned as not as archaic as I thought it would be. So I shall remove my objections, as far as the speech my the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is not removed. (Jvalant 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm happy for the speech to be included, but it must be as something included as part of an enc. article, not as the POV of the article. I'll have a go at a reasonable compromise. Tomandlu 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Jvalant is amenable to facts. I apologize for many of the mean things I've said about him, but not all, since he has accused me of being a racist and a member of the KKK. john k 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

John K, it's fine. I did insult you a fair bit and was convinced that you were NJW posting under a different login. But I guess you are not - I've only insulted those who have insulted me - which is precisely why I haven't said anything about Tomandlu. So I do regret my comments toward you as well. Cheers (Jvalant 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Tomandlu, regretfully this current version seems to sweep the whole WOI thing under the carpet. It comes across as extremely biased to me. I shall be making changes later tonight once I have the time - do let me know if you think these are fine. (Jvalant 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Okay (although I'm slightly confused as to how the current version sweeps the WOI issue under the carpet) - just remember, the article may present POVs, but should not endorse one, or exaggerate the significance of a particular POV. IMHO we really need to keep this aspect of the article confined as far as possible to the sections devoted to the controversy, and avoid "mission creep". Tomandlu 09:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW it's worth taking a look at American Civil War and Naming the American Civil War - if anyone feels that the controversy over the name needs expansion, it might be worth taking a leaf from those articles and moving any extended section to a new page specifically created to deal with the issue, and only retaining a section of reasonable length in the current article (which, IMHO, should be focussed on the actual events of the conflict). Tomandlu 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Compromise?

Why not The 1857 Indian Uprising ??-It is was indeed a major uprising, and (having no personal connection) NPOV. And then list the other names under it at the begining of the article? Not everyone has to argee, and "American Civil War" has the same problem, and is from the same era.... --Cybersquire 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry cyber - the problem isn't about the article title (which has been accepted - sort of - by all), but about how we list the alternative names in the intro section and also the text in the "debate over name of conflict" section. I think we're getting to a resolution.... Tomandlu 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different - Map

Hmm, tempted to put a bid in on this: Indian Mutiny map on ebay Tomandlu 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Thanks for opening an RfC for this page. I'll try a very rough stab at setting forth matters in a neutral manner. Feel welcome to clarify, but try to keep things brief and to the point.

• The dispute is over the best name for this article.
• Mutiny is a term in longstanding use as a description of these events. The term connotes defiance against legitimate power and arguably represents colonialist POV. On the other hand, British colonial rule ended 60 years ago and is very unlikely to resume.
• Rebellion might carry similar connotations to a lesser degree. It could also be a neutral description of an armed attempt at political independence that failed to achieve its goals.
• War of Independence is a modern term used in India and Pakistan. It is not in broad use in the rest of the English speaking world and might be confusing because neither country actually achieved independence in 1857.
• Indian could be a hot button term for parts of former British India. The colony was partitioned at independence and some territorial conflicts have followed between the modern states. The Kashmir region in particular has been the focal point of several wars, most recently in 1999.

I hope that summarizes the dilemma for visitors. Durova 03:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why for something to be a "mutiny" the question of "legitimate power" comes into it at all. The troops were in British employ and rose up against their (British) officers. It was thus a "mutiny" against the de facto political authorities. The issue of whether their authority was legitimate ought not come up, and I don't think there's any connotation whatsoever about the nature of British rule in India. I suppose it implies that the mutineers were soldiers in the employ of the British, but, um, they were. To say this is not to advance a POV. The supposed POV issues of rebellion are even less serious, I think. And I don't think that anybody has yet brought up any POV objections to "Indian." "Pakistan" obviously did not exist until 1947. john k 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

John K, the word mutiny means that it was ONLY the soldiers who revolted and not the local population or anyone else outside of the troops. This clearly was not the case. (Jvalant 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

Note that this was not the potentially offensive meaning that was argued by Durova above. I agree that the word mutiny implies (but does not mean) that it was only soldiers who revolted. That being said, it has always been clear, even from imperialist accounts by people who call it "the Mutiny," that this was not the case. The fact that a name is a misnomer is not a good reason to not call it that if that is the most common name. See for instance Hundred Years War, which lasted 116 years (unlike most other "X Years War"s, which lasted for exactly the amount of time stated, even the Eighty Years War, if we assume it started in 1568). The War of the Polish Succession, in spite of the fact that Poland was an elective monarchy, and thus had no succession. The Battle of Bunker Hill, actually fought on Breed's Hill. The general solution we adopt in such instances is to explain the possible confusions of the term in the text, not to suppress the most common name. john k 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that no one else seems to care about the racist NJW vandalizing the page over and over again. It is a fact that the Govt. of India is celebrating 2007 as the 150th of the events as The First War of Indian Independence - and so far the British Govt. has not protested that move. How is this statement not NPOV?

As far as editing the speech of the Speaker of the House, it is extremely important to convey that Indians saw the acts of Brits as opressive - this is clearly what the Speaker states - I am going to include that quote once again. If NJW has any speeches by any British Parliamentrian on why it should be known as the Indian Mutiny and not as a WOI, he is more than welcome to post it. If the Brits want to celebrate 2007 as the 150th anniversary of putting down the mutiny then he is more than welcome to post it too. For now, he should not be allowed to alter facts as they stand. (Jvalant 17:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

I am really starting to be annoyed by your baseless accusations. You are quite clearly the one with a nationalistic agenda here. Your edits are giving your views pride of place, rather than trying to illustrate multiple points of view. Misplaced Pages isn't your website jvalant, it isn't a soapbox for you to air only your views on. I suggest you leave Misplaced Pages as you are clearly only here to promote your ideology of chip-on-shoulder nationalism.NJW494 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give some valid points instead of showing your obviously racist tendencies. If you have nothing to add except further the imperialist agenda of your has-been nation, then Misplaced Pages is not a channel to vent the frustrations of the impotency of the erstwhile British Empire which now lives on the scraps thrown to it by its master - the USA. See a shrink and get over it. Jvalant 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you one thing - I wouldn't dream of putting a comment on a historical event by the Speaker of the British House of Commons in a Misplaced Pages article. This is partly because the incumbent is a cretin, but more generally because what politicians have to say about history is generally unreliable. They have no historical training, they don't undertake research, they're not published or peer-reviewed most of the time (and when they are they're not always reliable - I wouldn't consider Winston Churchill's historical writings to be so). When it's just a speech, as here, you have to bear in mind that they always have an agenda to push, in this case good old-fashioned nationalist rabble-rousing. Banging on about the "First War of Indian Independence" is a lot easier than actually doing something for your constituents. To accord such prominence to a completely POV quote from a politician and non-historian, and then claim it represents the views of a majority of Indians, is not acceptable. Most Indians I imagine neither know nor care what this conflict is called - "Indian Mutiny" is, as I have said many times before, inaccurate, but to describe it as "offensive" is just ridiculous chippiness. It's wrong because it's too limited a description of what happened, but the Rebellion did begin with a mutiny in the Bengal army. It is also still very widely used, even within the subcontinent, much more so than "First War of Indian Independence". Whilst we argue about this and politicise the page, it remains badly organised and poorly referenced, with numerous factual inaccuracies and intemperate language: there are better uses for our energies. Finally, fascinating as I have found this endless bickering on the talk page, I somehow do not think that this dispute is of any interest to ordinary readers of Misplaced Pages. That is why I deleted that section.Sikandarji 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, with all due respect this is entirely your personal opinion. After all, how important is the constituency of the Speaker of the House - he is not exactly among the most important MPs. I believe that elected leaders reflect the opinions and feelings of the citizens of the nation - if you have proof to back up your claims, please post them. (Jvalant 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

"I believe that elected leaders reflect the opinions and feelings of the citizens of the nation." Maybe I'm just an incorrigible cynic, but I don't. These are both POVs of course - we could have a little poll to see how many people think politicians can be relied upon to simply reflect the wishes of those who elected them. On the other hand we could drop it as a waste of time.Sikandarji 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that in wikipedia generally, statements by politicians are only taken to be reliable sources for what that politician believes. john k 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator blows Wiki-whistle: timeout

It doesn't help collaborative editing to personalize a dispute with confrontational phrases and hot button words. Let's remember Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Another Misplaced Pages page, the essay Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons applies here:

One of the best experiences at Misplaced Pages happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists.

As a gesture of good faith, I ask each of the editors here to strike out impolite statements such as "...showing your obviously racist tendencies..." and "...you are clearly only here to promote your ideology..." Whichever side of the matter you stand on, make it a point to conduct yourself with class so that - at best - you create a great article together or that - at worst - the other editor's behavior eventually speaks for itself at dispute resolution and someone hands you a barnstar for displaying grace under fire. Regards, ye-olde-administrator Durova 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomandlu, here arelinks that show that it is being celebrated as the First War of Independence

http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/13/stories/2006071314690400.htm

http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content.asp?id=352

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040105/main2.htm (Jvalant 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I say modern-day politicians' views should not be used as sources for historical subjects - a quotation from Vajpayee in the Tribune article:

“Our forefathers fought side by side, transcending religious, regional and linguistic differences against a common colonial oppressor in our First War of Independence in 1857. It reminds us that many of us have a shared history which pre-dates our more recent divisions.”

The sentiments in this speech are admirable, but they are not good history because Vajpayee has a concurrent politicial agenda to push, in this case improving India-Pakistan relations. Sindh played no part in the 1857 Rebellion, whilst Delhi was retaken from the rebels by troops from Punjab and the North-West Frontier, the core regions of Pakistan. Hindu and Muslim fought side by side in 1857 (though not without tensions, as you'll see if you read William Dalrymple's latest book, The Last Mughal) - but the Rebellion did not spread to the territory of what is now Pakistan, rather the reverse. Sikandarji 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Err - William Dalrymple - where is he from ? (Jvalant 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

What does that matter? I've told you before. Judge historians by the quality of their arguments and the reliability of their sources, not by their nationality. Dalrymple's not the greatest historian in fact (although he's always entertaining). However, he has a very good research team working for him, including a scholar called Faruqi who reads Persian and Urdu. The most interesting stuff in "The Last Mughal" is taken from the "Mutiny Papers" from the National Archives of India, documents in Urdu and Persian written during the internal administration of the city under Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons, and the Dihli Urdu Akhbar, the Urdu-language newspaper which carried on publishing throughout the siege. These are the sources which reveal certain tensions between the largely Hindu Sepoys and Muslims from the Doab region who had poured into Delhi to fight a holy war against the British. In any case, that's not central to the point I'm making: Hindus and Muslims did fight the British side by side in 1857. But to equate these with the modern Indian and Pakistani nationalities is extremely problematic. The fact is that the majority of the "British" troops besieging Delhi from the Ridge were Punjabis and Pathans. That's what makes Vajpayee's statement good politics, good, admirable and humane foreign policy, but bad history. Sikandarji 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, I completely I agree with you. The reason I put those links in was in response to Tomandlu asking if the Indian Govt. is gonna celebrate it at a "war of independence" - I was not about to claim that vajpayee was a historian. (Jvalant 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Jvalant, I think NJW's point is that "Indian Mutiny" is the most commonly used term in the English-speaking world - and that comprises much more than just the UK. You yourself acknowledged that it is sometimes used in India, and frequently by Indian historians. Check any respectable university library catalogue and you will find 100+ titles on the "Indian Mutiny", many of very recent publication. The Bodleian only has eight books on the "Indian War of Independence", one of which is Savarkar's polemic and two of which do not even refer to 1857. It does not help matters when you describe changes that are owing to a difference of opinion as "vandalism". This is not vandalism - people writing obscenities and insults or leaving random remarks on the page would constitute "vandalism". Both of you would do better to take this to arbitration and stop behaving like a couple of two-year olds. I've already given you my view - the whole "debate over the name" section should be deleted as tiresome, politicised and irrelevant to the purposes of this article. Meanwhile you could both devote your obviously considerable energies to actually improving the content of the page and referencing it properly rather than trading insults. Here's an idea - why not go to a library for a month and actually read some of the titles I've cited rather than flinging absurd allegations of racism around on the basis of some half-remembered facts from your 10th class textbook? Sikandarji 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for assertion that majority of countries know this conflict as a sepoy/Indian Mutiny:

The majority of other language wikipedia articles in latin script refer to this conflict using some variant of "Sepoy Mutiny"/"Indian Mutiny". That pretty much shows that such terminology is not confined to the UK, indeed in the US the terms Indian Mutiny/Sepoy Muting are also the most widely used, as in the rest of the anglophone world apart from the subcontinent. You have to allow your preferred term to be criticised in the article if you are allowed to criticise other POV in the article. Otherwise you are simply promoting th idea of the conflict being a WOI at the expense of other views on the conflict.NJW494 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the line I have deleted...again..."However the term First War of Indian Independence has had very little popular or academic recognition outside the subcontinent." It is a loaded statement - please provide any reference you may have which clearly states this. Else, I shall have to put in the following line - "Indian Mutiny has very little popular or academic regocnition outside of the UK." In the USA, practically no one knows about this series of events so your allegation about the "anglophone" world outside of the subcontinent is false. (Jvalant 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Those who know about it at all in the U.S. (and they are few, given the general lack of interest shown by Americans in anything which isn't in their backyard) are much more likely to know of it as the "Indian Mutiny", as that is what most books on the subject call it (most of those which don't call it the 1857 Revolt or Rebellion or something similar). That said, I cannot see any necessity for the line which NJW494 has been adding "However the term First War of Indian Independence has had very little popular or academic recognition outside the subcontinent." It is indeed a loaded and unnecessary statement. There is a lengthy section already devoted to the debate over whether or not it was a "War of Independence" which will tell the neutral reader all which he or she needs to know. Equally, Jvalant's reference to "Indian Mutiny" being "controversial" and the whole section dealing with the "debate over the name" should be deleted as superfluous. See my other comments above. Sikandarji 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, whether you like it or not, there is a conscious movement in India to term it as a WOI - and the term "mutiny" is seen by many Indians as insulting. How is mentioning that not NPOV? If there is a movement in the UK to stress it as a mutiny which states that all this Indian talk of a WOI is hogwash - I have no issues with it being mentioned in the "debate over the name" section. (Jvalant 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Sikandarji is right, we don't need those issues covered in that section. The names should be listed, but shouldn't be promoted or attacked in that section. I have left the statement by that politician in, but it seems a trifle useless to me. The following section adequately explains the debate over the character of the conflict, without resorting to some heavy politicisation. If Jvalant is not happy with criticism of his POV being included in the article then I hardly think it is fair that he feels he can dish out criticism of other POV. As such it is much more simple just to list the facts. NJW494 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with any criticism - if you do have statements by British politicians stating that is a mutiny and not a WOI, go ahead and put it in. The line you deleted only says what the quote by the Speaker of the parliament states. If I wanted to politicize the thing - I would include quotes from the Prime Minister, the ex-Prime Minister as well as several MPs. (Jvalant 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Just to note, I'm not sure where NJW is getting the term "Sepoy Mutiny" from. The term is "Indian Mutiny" or "Sepoy Rebellion." Sepoy Mutiny is a weird bastard child of the two, and I don't think I've ever seen it. john k 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are books which use the term "Sepoy Mutiny", for instance Ramesh Chandra Majumdar's The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 (Calcutta) 1957, or Edward Vibart The Sepoy Mutiny as seen by a Subaltern. From Delhi to Lucknow (London) 1898. Tapti Roy uses the expression as well in her 1991 book. It's not "weird" at all - I've certainly seen the term used before, which is scarcely surprising as it's a precise description of the early stages of the Rebellion in the Bengal army. And to Jvalant - I fail to see a distinction between inserting quotes from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and quotes from the Prime Minister or other MPs. They're all politicians, not historians. Maybe if I searched long and hard I could find a quotation from a British MP about the "Mutiny", but what would its interest or relevance be? I've already told you that I wouldn't dream of putting an equivalent quotation into the article. Frankly, nobody in the UK (or anywhere else I should imagine) gives a stuff what Indian politicians call it, so what's it doing in the article? Sikandarji 08:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its probably high time that we reached a consensus on removing all pieces of POV from the name section. Does anyone other than Jvalant object to my removal of all loaded comments (including that random Indian politician's POV)? NJW494 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to NJW494's obsession to anglecize the article; it seems we will need to keep a watchman for this section or else he might go ahead with a proposal by a voice vote and the time given for voting will only be enough for him to cough once. NJW, there are better things in life than to undo wrongs of ancestors. --Bobby Awasthi 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just interested in NPOV, I'm acting on comments made by other users who do not see the point in allowing politics and POV to intrude on a historical article. Your comments are quite out of order. I will not respond with childish name calling as this debate is already heated, but I'll be damned if I tolerate such remarks about my character. You assume because I'm English that my intention is to anglicise the article, but one wonders whether your nationality may perhaps come into play here. NJW494 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, I have no qualms about putting in quotes by all Indian politicians on this issue - but it would be beating on a dead horse. This one quote does reflect the current view prevalent in India - and hence, it is important that it remain. I have not stated anywhere whether this is a correct intepretation or not. So, what exactly is the harm? Besides it is clearly stated that Mr. Chatterjee is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and not a historian. (Jvalant 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

merge suggestion

Merge as suggested. Hmains 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Enfield Rifle

The Enflield Rifle section doesn't actually say whether the cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat or not. I have read histories which claim both that they were and weren't, but does anyone know if there is a historical consensus on the issue? If they do can they add and source the fact (or facts)? The section itself could do with a tidy too actually, too many short paragraphs. Cheers--Jackyd101 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone else can confirm this for me. It says in the article that British soldiers were trained to be able to fire "three to four" rounds per minute. I've not heard soldiers being able to fire four rounds in a minute, three being the limit. I own a reproduction 1853 Enfield rifle, which I use for live firing and in American Civil War reenactments. It takes some skill to fire three blank rounds in a minute, which requires far less effort from the shooter. Well trained soldiers during the Civil War were said to have been able to fire a max of three a minute. I've watched experienced shooters fire three rounds a minute, and its usually always around one minute. Now, I don't know a whole lot about British military training and whether or not they were just that much better than the Americans, but I don't see how it is possible that five whole seconds can be shaved off the time it takes to fire each round (20 seconds to 15). Somebody get back to me on this. Thanks. Buckeye1921 10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3rd Cavalry / Cawnpore etc:

MANY MONTHS AGO I HAD MENTIONED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ARTICLE WAS PARTICULARLY TILTING IN FAVOUR OF A PARTICULAR NATIONALISM. BUT I FIND MOST OF THE TALK PAGE DELETED ALTOGETHER. I think someone has to start editing the language. So let it be myself. I am trying to only remove 'weasle words' as per Misplaced Pages conventions and accordingly changing 'weasle sentences' (lemme call them that).

There was an incident in Nagpur as well. I had posted it. It should be in the archives. (Jvalant 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

--Bobby Awasthi 12:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing numerical details

Over time I have been looking for numerical details (numbers on each side on various places of uprising, number of combatant casualties on either side as well as that of civilians, also no numbers are available for 'Retaliation' section) but could not find anything on this. Is this data available somewhere. Vjdchauhan 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I found some data available on cached files of Defence Journal online related to your query. ] Try if this link works or else try google search with 1857 (out of quotes)and cawnpore or lucknow etc locations (in quotes). --Bobby Awasthi 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Title

Whoever is vandalizing the page by removing the Hindi title unilaterally should stop doing so without a prior discussion. I think it should stay.

This is English Misplaced Pages, and hence vernacular scripts are to be avoided as far as possible. The exceptions are when the exact spelling of a non-English name is mentioned. What you have here is simply the Hindi transalation of the title, which is unnecessary. That name belongs on the Hindi Misplaced Pages, which is linked through the sidebar. Gamesmaster G-9 08:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The page on India has the name in Hindi, as Bharat and not as a direct translation - ditto for the pages of Japan, China etc. So the Hindi bit stays. (Jvalant 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

That is because the nation of India has an official name in Hindi which is different from the English name. This is entirely different. Its just a direct transalation of the title. Gamesmaster G-9 09:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really - it is the unofficial name Bharat which is written in the Hindi script. The official name "Bharat Ganrajya" is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

You're missing the point - "Bharat" is a NAME. It is also the correct name in Hindi for India, i.e. how the nation of India is to be addressed in Hindi. The Mutiny of 1857 is an EVENT. It does not have a proper name, and any Hindi phrase you affix to it is merely a transalation. Gamesmaster G-9 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. "Mutiny of 1857" is NAME given to an EVENT. Just as "War of Independence" is a NAME given to an EVENT or the Olympics is a NAME given to a Sporting EVENT. Incidentally, it is the Hindi words used here are also the official name through which the Govt. of India addresses this event in Hindi. (Jvalant 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Nope, there's a difference between a name (which is a Proper noun), and a description(which is a phrase). In any case, that isn't even the reason I removed the name in Devanagri. As I have mentioned before - simple transalations of a word or phrase into different languages should not be included in English Misplaced Pages. Gamesmaster G-9 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely your opinion. As such the name stays. (Jvalant 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

The Devanagari or other Indic scripts are unnecessary. This issue is not about the pros and cons of expressing Indian identity. What is to stop editors from adding translations of anything associated with India in an Indian language or script? The vernacular press wrote the names of the viceroys and governor-generals in Devanagari, Bengali, and other scripts. Do we need to add the Devanagari transliteration for Mountbatten, Dalhousie, etc. in those articles? This is the English wikipedia, afterall. Sarayuparin 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper nouns remain the same - names of events may be significantly different. (Jvalant 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Shaik Paltu Rank

Possible contradiction/inaccuracy between this page and the Shaikh Paltu page: The Shaikh Paltu page says he was promoted immediately to Havaldar, while the this page says "Shaikh Paltu was, however, promoted to the rank of Jemadar in the Bengal Army." While this is not necessarily a contradiction, as he could have been promoted immediately to the NCO rank of Havaldar (native sergeant) and later to the lowest Commissioned Officer rank of Jemadar, this should (if it is in fact correct) be clarified in both articles. Budgee 10:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

I'm not seeking to denigrate Indian and Pakistani perspectives, rather to add a little counterbalance to the Indian opinion. After a cooling off period I've decided that the name and character sections certainly did need a little tweak to put the Indian subcontinental opinion in context with western views without removing or judging the Indian/Pakistani opinion. NJW494 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, lopsided British views do not constitute "western views" just as Indian views do not constitute "eastern views". Stop vandalizing this page over and over again.

Those edits were entirely reasonable and you wiped them out. How can any westerner persuade you to honour views that aren't Indian nationalism? You've made some sections this article rather one sided with your outright rejection of other views. Other editors compromised and let you do what you wanted, I even gave in for a while due to your persistance. These compromises have led to your total control of this page. It isn't your personal fiefdom, it is an encyclopaedia. Give me some constructive comments: How was what I wrote not nutral, how were my views as lopsided as your Indian parliamentarian's martyr spiel? It is worthwhile to allow non-Indians to illustrate their points of view in these matters of opinion. Allow other editors to have their say. It will make Misplaced Pages better if you learn to allow others to air what are actually majority views (among English speakers). NJW494 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If this conflict continues, after I have had a two month "cooling off" period then I believe I may have no choice but to call for arbitration on this matter. NJW494 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NJW - "and supported the foreigners" - removed by NJW - WHY? Were the British not foreigners?

"The title "First War of Independence" has not as yet gained much support outside the Indian subcontinent however, with variants of "Indian Mutiny" or "Sepoy Mutiny" or their translations generally preferred in Europe and North America." As I said earlier you must provide sources from Europe (outside of Britain) and from North America as well. This ridiculous comment is totally POV.

"and Pakistan it is not usually described as such in the United Kingdom and most other western countries" - Again - use sources. You can put in UK in this statement and neither I nor the world really care what the people in a dump like the UK believe. You need to provide sources for "most other western countries". (Jvalant 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

You're being rather rude here. I may soon be calling for arbitration here, so your internet bullying can be addressed. The titles in the other language versions of wikipedia are often variants of Indian or Sepoy mutiny unless they've been changed to a translation of this page title. That evidence has already been given to you. I'll give it 48 hours, then hopefully reason will rule supreme. NJW494 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Link one: , American site, prestigious University, uses the terms "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion", the specific entry is on this page, the special collection on the subject described as the "Sepoy Rebellion" collection . The South Asian Journalists Association (in the US) titles their page showcasing a few US articles contemporary to the rebellion as "The Indian Mutiny" , this group seems to be based at Columbia University. Now from a Canadian University, page uses "Indian Mutiny". . Now from Columbia Encyclopedia: a respected American Encyclopedia. French Misplaced Pages: , German Misplaced Pages: , Dutch Misplaced Pages: , Polish Misplaced Pages: , Portugese Misplaced Pages: . These European Wikipedias use variations of Sepoy Mutiny. Those that do not use a translation of this article's title. Is that proof enough? NJW494 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NJW, you can give hundred links from hundred different language wikipedias; we all know most of them just happen to be translations of this one. I do agree that many users of world history are accustomed to the word 'Mutiny'; definitely lot more than 'War' in context of 1857 rising. However, the simple reason for that is that most written reference originated from the military of victor country. That does not by default legitimise the word or description as the sole authorized one. This is as simple as Saddam hanging or Afghan War or Custer's fall. This is also as simple as Mittal's Arcelor takeover, or Bangalored factor in US. It all depends on, which side you have been taught or shown. It could be good to keep editing to what you think is right; but do note that it is Indian History; probably better be told by Indian perspective (now that it is 21st century and Indians know how to read and write and talk globally). Since you insist on reference game, here are some 'external' links to show that the other sentence is also viable OUTSIDE Indian subcontinent.

• Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. (The only outsider who was probably not a party)
• J.W.Kaye, History of the Sepoy War, (3 volume history, London. 1876).
• The Sepoy War of 1857: Mutiny or First Indian War of Independence?
• This is someone in US: Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC gives a brilliant analysis of the 1857 War of Independence(The Defence Journal - December 99 - Chapter Five: Development of Situation-January to July 1857)
• Library of Congress Country Studies (US) also recognizes the factThe uprising, which seriously threatened British rule in India, has been called many names by historians, including the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857; many people in South Asia, however, prefer to call it India's first war of independence.

Open the page titled Sepoy Rebellion in there

Also just to give you some insight on one of the western descriptions of foundation of what you call Mutiny: The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company's own funds? While they combated the French revolution under the pretext of defending "our holy religion," did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of the Juggernaut? These are the men of "Property, Order, Family, and Religion."

-Karl Marx, The New-York Daily Tribune. 22 July, 1853. (These sentences also found way into the book I mentioned above)

In lighter vein, somewhat similar adamance on part of East India Company was responsible for that mutiny also.

--Bobby Awasthi 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one more insight. I followed the Link One you gave which refers to the so-called rebellion. The final link opens the following page: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Guide to Selected Special Collections Sections from Economic History to George, Stefan / Sections from Economic History to George / . Probably you know this, or else you would have given the direct link to the Sepoy Rebellion page which would have opened what I just mentioned. I see that your inclination is more to win than to argue and justify. :)

Also on the Columbia Encyclopedia evidence, the same encyclopedia has accounted for the life of Warnet Joseph Wolseley as follows: Warnet Joseph Wolseley, 1833–1913, British field marshal. He fought in Burma (present-day Myanmar; 1852–53), the Crimea (1854–56), India (1857–58), and China (1860). Now you may want to call it Myanmar Mutiny, Crimean Mutiny, Indian Mutiny, and Chinese Mutiny :)

--Bobby Awasthi 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NJW, I honestly don't give two fu..ks about your 48 hour deadline. A consensus was reached after much deliberation. What's this whole "cooling off" period all about? None of the languages you mentioned are an official language in India. On the other hand, English is an official language. Besides, why has the British Govt. not objected to India officially calling the series of events - The First War of Independence. Well, they aren't even objecting to India officially celebrating its 150th anniversary. Why is that? They did object to Iran denying the holocaust - did they not? Really, you need to get over the fact that Britain is a has-been nation with little or no relevance in today's world. The sooner you grasp this grain of truth, the easier it will be to digest facts. (Jvalant 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Name clarification

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance but isn't "First War of Indian Independence" kind of an oxymoron? If it were truly a war of independence, there wouldn't be a 2nd, 3rd, etc. War of Independence. Just my two cents worth... NPOV patrol 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s What's up with the Hindi script?

If you knew Indian history you would have not talked like an oxymoron. In its technical meaning if you call anything a war, there are only two of them, the first world war and the second. If you call it a war the way war is seen by most of 'humans' even the 1942 'Quit India' or many other such episodes will qualify for it. However, your two cents worth knows only a war which had bombs and bullets and corpses. It would be too much to expect you to understand that war is not always 'War of Worlds' it may also be 'War of Words'.

--Bobby Awasthi 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. You are showing your ignorance. (202.177.230.240 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I ask a simple question and get tag teamed by the cocksmooch twins. Nice! 68.221.11.205 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - but this poor obsessive behaviour tends to be strife amongst the indian suffragette brigade on here.

Nomenclature

 Dear me,
 I have never seen such a storm in a teacup over a name. I entered this page whilst researching 

The Indian Mutiny. Try entering War of Independance, and see how many links come up. But the Mutiny has only one; surely even rabid Hindu nationalists should be happy with that. Speaking of rabies, cannot someone ban Jvalant; it is nothing to do with POV, the bloke is simply an arsehole. For research sake, I am Australian, therefore both South Asian and European.

DylanThomas 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, Even the Irish and the Chechens and the Talibans and Iraqi Sunnis would love to name their respective 'mutinies' as 'wars of Independence'. Again, go and try, you would find many of those too. Want me to say more?

Speaking of Rabies, cannot someone remind us that Jvalant's may be a case of passion, which is still understandable; but yours is definitely a case of foul language and ignorant hypocrisy.

And oh Yeah! Let me give you a piece of knowledge on your subject of interest, i.e., History. The British Redcoats who were most responsible British factors behind this 'war/munity' and many such others in Asia and Africa and blamed with plundering a lot of the spoils of wars; were all deported to Australia, post enquiries (1860s). They are said to be the first whites in Australia; who did something very similar as what they did in India; to a comparatively smaller and weaker population of aborigines in Australia; for which Queen of England explicitly apologized to them on one of her visits, not many years back. Seems like ancestral lines cannot be hidden behind a camouflaged NPOV in today's world for research sake.

 On a lighter note, wonder how your guide/tutor bears with your ultimate ignorance on 
 topics you are researching. Or you also happen to be one of those outsourcing your  
 assignments to 'mutineers' India?

--Bobby Awasthi 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines regarding racist trailer trash like Dylan? He may have run out of aborigines to maim or kill or just couldn't afford a ticket to one of the cricket games to hurl racial abuse at spectators or Asian players. Forget wikipedia, such third rate individuals should be banned from entering civilized society. Oops - that is already done - didn't he say he was in Australia? Well, as far as he remains there or in the UK - it is fine. (Jvalant 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Wow! Also tag-teamed. I guess I'm priveledged; but a couple of minor inaccuracies: the first whites in my country arrived in 1788, not 1860; I go to the cricket to annoy Poms; and I am part Aboriginal. DylanThomas 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant - you are sailing very close to the wind here. If you want to get yourself banned this is a great way of going about it. As you may have noticed, I have given up trying to edit this page because of your aggressive, nationalist and ill-informed interventions. You seem to view Misplaced Pages purely as a forum for political point-scoring and the odd bit of playground name-calling, and frankly If you're going to persist in this sort of behaviour I think we'd be better off without you. Sikandarji 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Gunga Din-ish intervention, Sikanderji. Aggressive, nationalist and ill-informed??? Well, what have I written that is ill-informed? You are the one who sees this as domain where the view of the imperialists must prevail. Some random trailer trash dude comes in and hurls abuses at me - what am I supposed to do - thank him. I live in India; you don't. You may be inclined to please the imperialists - that does not necessarily mean I should be so inclined as well. India is already better off without you, don't ever come back. (Jvalant 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

A trailer trash dude? In what part of India do you live, Jvalant? West Hollywood!

DylanThomas 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More or less everything you've written has been ill-informed, and for evidence I refer the reader not only to your tantrums on this page but to our past debate here: : you compared the work of Rudrangshu Mukherjee and Tapti Roy to Mein Kampf, and called me an "Imperialist bootlicking buffoon", amongst other things. Rather than making any effort to improve the content of the page you only seem interested in trivial questions of nomenclature, and persist in accusing anyone whose views do not conform to the simplistic schoolbook narrative of the events of 1857 of being an 'imperialist', although curiously enough you also denounce the work of Indian historians you disagree with as 'leftist', whilst at the same time citing Karl Marx (erroneously, as it happens) in support of your argument. Where any of us lives is entirely irrelevant to this debate: what matters is the ability to read the relevant historiography and use it dispassionately, without EITHER Nationalist or Imperialist bias, to build a better article. Unfortunately this is an ability which you appear to lack entirely - for you it's all about which side wins. Sikandarji 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah - and you conveniently mentioned how Savarkar was "implicated" in the Gandhi assassination. The fact that he was acquitted was irrelevant. Yes, I did compare their work to Mein Kampf and deservedly so. You seem to think that you are the only one who looks at facts through a neutral prism when the fact of the matter is that you choose which sources you feel are correct and which are not. Learn to accept different points of view for a change. (Jvalant 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Sikandarji- Believe it or not, I entered this page seeking knowledge. Mea Culpa if I used a very :blunt adjective to describe another contributor, but Australians are noted for intolerance of :Bovine Execrement. I was seeking a sense of place for what led to the horrors of the Cawnpore :Well. I fear I have found it, yet I still do not understand it. I should appreciate any input you :may have. P.S. I am not a (recent) member of the KKK, and I do not live in a trailer- in fact, in :Australia that would be difficult.

DylanThomas 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sikandarji, to put things in right perspective, it was me who gave half a dozen references one of which was Karl Marx, and I see no problem in citing a reference merely because he happened to an idelogist from a different school of thought. Also, if I may dare say so, I did see a lot of demotivating writings from you on the earlier talk pages including the ones that silenced me for quite a while in past when I was fairly new. If I may dare say a little bit more, on a second look at your sermons, they are always tilted in a particular direction to justify a version of the article which any non-Indian or less informed non-resident India would find convincing and any resident non-political Indian would find too incorrect. I wouldnt know your real motives for this, and I am not a party to this, but if Jvalant is using any language, it is more because of provocation than anything else. I dont want to talk about an uneducated egoist hypocrite, who doesnt know the difference between Whites arriving on Columbus' ship to the whites arriving to enslave Red Indians to the White man called George W Bush. And the poor guy came in, to research a subject he knows so little about! Anyways he was only interested in Cawnpore, which is world renowned as a word used by British when torturing their victims during 'Devil's Wind', I can understand his mental capabilities. And I also understand, you may have your own personal reasons to come in support of such an idiot who is turning such a non-issue (according to his own words as well as yours) into such a mess! And Oh Yeah! I havent seen much contribution from you as well, on editing front of the actual article, apart from contributing vigourously on the talk page to kill any other school of thought altogether.

--Bobby Awasthi 14:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, I was referring to the following exchange:

‘Well, first Karl Marx's work "The First Indian War of Independence" clearly calls it a war of independence. He co-authored that with Frank Engels.’ (Jvalant 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

‘Finally, you are unwise to cite Marx in support of your views. The title given to the Soviet compilation of his and Engels' writings on India (in the original Russian О Национально освободительном восстании 1857-1859гг в Индии (Москва) 1960 - On the National-Liberation uprising of 1857-9 in India) is an invention of his Soviet Editors. In the original letters Marx wrote on the subject for the New York Daily Tribune he simply uses the term "Indian Revolt" (I refer you to the English Edition of Marx & Engels On Colonialism (Moscow) 1959). He also refers to Indians in extremely pejorative terms (he describes Hinduism as "a religion of cruelty" p155), not least because Marx thought British rule in India was "progressive". Sikandarji 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

and my point was that there is something rather inconsistent about refusing to accept the work of Roy and Mukherjee on the grounds that they are 'leftist', whilst at the same time comparing their books to Mein Kampf AND then citing Marx in support of his version of 1857 (only the title - which was incorrect - there is no indication that Jvalant has read this, or any of the other works I suggested). I am sorry you do not feel that our exchanges were productive. I reproduce below my response to what you wrote about Cawnpore, which I would have thought made it clear that I am NOT trying to push some 'Imperialist' POV here: it is simply an insult Jvalant sprays around in an effort to make those he disagrees with give up and go away (which I eventually did).

'You're right to draw attention to this Bobby, because this is an episode that attracted particular attention at the time and has raised passions ever since. The British saw the massacre of women and children at Cawnpore as the central deed of violence and immorality which justified not only their subsequent brutal retaliation, but also their rule for the next ninety years. This is why the largest Mutiny Memorial in India was constructed over the well in the Bibi-Ghar into which the bodies were thrown, together with an enormous memorial church in the cantonment (which I visited earlier this year). The problem is that, so far as I am aware, there are no published contemporary accounts in Hindi, Urdu or Persian of what happened, and of the manuscripts and oral traditions the only one I have seen referred to is by one "Nanakchand", whose account is reproduced by G.O. Trevelyan in his Cawnpore. The single eyewitness source upon whom most historians rely for a description of the siege and the initial massacre at the Ghat is Captain Mowbray Thompson's The Story of Cawnpore - he was one of three British officers to escape alive, but of course did not witness the Bibi-ghar massacre. Everything else is derived from the brief appeals for assistance which General Wheeler was able to send out of the entrenchment, the reports of officers and journalists after the recapture of the city and the depositions of sixty-three Indian witnesses from Cawnpore, taken by the British in their enquiry after the capture of the city. These were published by G.W. Forrest in 1902, and I have a copy of the AES reprint. Whilst these are as close as we are likely to get to an account of the siege and massacre from the other side, the manner in which the depositions were taken and the interviews conducted means it is a source which must be handled carefully - I can put in some stuff derived from it if you want. Nobody knows exactly what happened or who was directly responsible; although the Nana Sahib's previous conduct does not suggest that he was a man of any great morality, and as ruler of the city he bore some sort of responsibility for the massacre, we do not know for certain if he ordered it directly. However, even from British accounts we have plenty of evidence that, horrific as the massacre was, the retaliation which followed, not just in Cawnpore but all over Northern India, was even more horrific and resulted in the slaughter of innocent civilians on a massive scale. An profound callousness and easy brutality characterised many British officers who had lived through the Rebellion and in some cases had their families killed, and they responded savagely. W.H. Russell, Harriet Tytler and many others give us ample corroboration of this, and it was widely condemned by many observers at the time. The Indian victims of the British suppression of the Rebellion were much greater in number than the British killed in the initial massacres at Jhansi, Delhi and Cawnpore. The latter, however, have a hundred and fifty year old tradition of tragic narrative behind them. Sikandarji 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)'

Frankly I have better things to do than argue the toss with you two - I've provided plenty of references to things you could read if you were actually interested in expanding your knowledge of the subject, and I've been forced to come to the conclusion that you aren't. Sikandarji 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What better way to insult a Hindu than to compare him to bovine excrement? Of course, that is not very racist nori gnorant but merely adding to the multi-cultural milieu - at least according to Sikanderji. I have a feeling that Dylan Thomas is actually NJW - that would not be surprising - I too would be ashamed about my British "heritage" if I were a Brit. Funny, he chose an Aussie identity given the lack of difference in anything except cricketing skills. I wouldn't recommend anyone wasting time with Sikanderji either - he will rush to Ragib and make a complaint. Obviously insulting someone's religion is not provocation in Sikanderji's book either. Dylan - so what's the Aussie equivalent of the proverbial trailer where you stay? Is it bogan? If you have nothing to add to the First War of Indian Independence, then continue posting your racist messages - I shall have to respond to them in kind. (Jvalant 17:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Dylan Thomas has used some pretty unpleasant language, but the phrase 'bovine excrement' was a thinly-disguised reference to 'bullshit'. I would have thought even you could see that. He's not insulting your religion, merely questioning your level of knowledge and ability to engage in reasoned argument, in which I would say he was entirely justified. Sikandarji 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I request the users to drop the name-calling, and get back to discussing the article. Comment on content, not the person. Thank you. --Ragib 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see far too much energy flowing out in talk page than in the actual article. I had put tags for citations, in the Cawnpore section; many of which were actually cited here in the heat of argument, but never added as the contents of the section in the actual article. I would eventually love to do that, but it would have been a lot more productive to replace the tags with contents and citations with first hand knowledge rather than keep it as a weapon for argument. Jvalant, as far as quoting/referring to Karl Marx is concerned, I am a person who will pick knowledge even if it is in a gutter. I request you to please use polite language with others coz you are only hurting yourself by doing otherwise. Once someone told me, "It is stupidity to argue with a lowly person, he would first get you down to his level and then win coz he has mastered his level." Sikandarji, I dont see any anomaly in not accepting two people who have only written based on read or heard accounts flavoured with their own ideologies, and accepting someone else's work based on a closer view even if he happened to be from the same ideology. That does not gaurantee his ingenuity to me still. Coz I see history as a mere shadow of today and have seen quite a lot of sun and rain to relate today to yesterday and make my own judgements. No grudges, but I would still request you to work on referring and citing to the article wherever you have material. On a lighter vien, NPOV means Neutral Point of View otherwise, we'll be talking again here.

This argument is closed from my end. Thanks for showing neutrality Ragib! --Bobby Awasthi 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I have recently deleted and altered statements which were POV - if these are correct and I am mistaken then I would like some references please. Thanks. (Jvalant 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

The brief history of British expansion in India section needs tidying up because the grammar is pretty awlful!

War of Independence

From what I understand, the title of the article is the most commonly used name describing these series of events? So why isn't it War of Independence? That is by far the most common name. (Hanuman420 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

This has been discussed before - please see the above dicussions on the naming controversy. From what I can see, "Indian Rebellion of 1867" seems to be a neutral compromise. +A.0u 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chapattis / lotus flowers / quoting famous line ??

"Chapaties and Lotus Flowers began to circulate around large parts of India, quoting the famous line "Sub lal hogea hai." (Everything will become Red.), passed around by people from town to town and village to village, as a symbol of the prophecy and a sign of the coming revolt." -- A chapatti is a flat bread. I don't understand how a chapatti or a lotus flower could quote anything. I assume that this means that people circulated chapattis and lotus flowers and ciculated the quote as well, but this really isn't very clear. What part did the chapattis and lotus flowers actually play? -- Writtenonsand 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the quote was passed along by the people who were passing the chapaties and lotuses. Role? Nothing much other than serving to rally the population, give them a heads up that a mutiny was brewing. Kind of like old scottish highland chieftains sending around a burning cross (Crann Tara) to rally their clansmen to war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hserus (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Chappatis are Indian food, and the lotus is the national flower, both thus exclude the British. As a statement of commensality and nationality without overt religious context, it is fairly clear. Its meaning at the time, and the extent to which it indicated opposition to the British, has been set out in some texts that I've seen before. Imc 08:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Debate over national character" section

1. Many princes and maharajas did not participate in the rebellion, and those that did were basically interested in reviving and reclaiming their own principalities and fiefdoms, not in creating a United India;
2. The Army and the Princes, who were the principal instigators of the rebellion of 1857, played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged in the 1880s;
3. The Westernised intellectuals supported the British; however, an exception to this rule was Azimullah Khan, a Westernised rebel supporter.

Where are the sources which point to these alleged facts? Or are these points merely the product of a very fertile imagination? And what exactly is a "westernized intellectual"? Besides, the Bombay naval "mutiny" proves that the army did indeed participate in the Nationalist movement, as do soldiers of the INA who moved from the British to the Indian side. I shall be deleting the points, unless someone proves otherwise. Thanks. (Jvalant 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Those deletes would be just as short sighted and ill advised as the rest of the edits you've made in this document so far, so I'd advise you - dont. As for the bombay naval ratings mutiny and indian soldiers who ere Japanese POWs joining the INA, that was in the mid 1940s, almost 90 years after the events of 1857. So what you cite is not valid here, or relevant to this discussion at all. srs 10:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any counterpoints or merely advice? Read the section again. "The Army and the Princes, who were the principal instigators of the rebellion of 1857, played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged in the 1880s". It is obvious this is the same movement which culminated with the Quit India movement. Since, no one has come up with any valid points, I shall take them off. (Jvalant 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

The statement "A united India did not exist at that time in political terms" is misleading and mischievous in this context. Consider the circulation of chapatis and lotus blossoms. The worrisome element of the whole circulation process, as far as the British were concerned, was it's extent and speed. Surely, a set of symbols with a common meaning across the sub-continent argues for a pan-indian consciousness independent of the British colonial identity? The insidiousness of the comment has to do with the qualifier "in political terms". Consider the greek city states combining against the Persians to see how ridiculous this statement is.

Could someone help me identify the source and significance of the "sab lal ho gaeya hai?" (incorrectly translated as "will" instead of "has" in the article) quote? This.is.abhishek.datta 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mr. Basu - stop vandalizing the page. Please build a consensus first. (Jvalant 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Absurd causes

"Indians were unhappy with the heavy-handed rule of the Company which had embarked on a project of rather rapid expansion and westernisation. This included the outlawing of many religious customs, both Muslim and Hindu, which were viewed as uncivilized by the British. This included a ban on sati (suicidal widow burning)" Is it being said that the abolition of Sati actually resulted in the War of Independence? Where is the source for this ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Here is a source: India Rising

It was believed that the British were seeking to destroy traditional Indian religious and cultural customs. One concern was that the British were trying to force conversion to Christianity upon the Indian people. The political and legal systems were seen as inherently biased towards the British. The East India Company, formed to trade in India, now effectively ruled much of India.

Changes introduced by the British, such as outlawing sati (the ritual burning of widows) and child marriage, may have been well-meaning but they were imposed without any regard for Indian tradition or culture. They were seen as a westernising policy and there was a widespread feeling that the traditional Indian way of life was under threat.

No single factor was in itself enough to start a revolt, but the cumulative effect meant that all that was needed was a catalyst to turn discontent amongst the sepoys into a much more serious affair.

Hope that helps --Philip Baird Shearer 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First War

If this was the First War of Indian Independence what was the Second War of Indian Independence and has there been a Third War? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great War did not need a Greater War or Greatest War to be called so. The actions of INA and the Quit India movement can be termed as a the Second War of Independence cumulatively, but that is not how they are known, just as the Second World War is not known as a Greater War. (Jvalant 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Aesthetics

Also, don't change the introduction without stating your reasons and discussing them. (Jvalant 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

I gave a full explanation in the edit history: "If the Hindi text is going to be in the article as it appears as a line of blocks if the correct fonts are not available to a browser, it is best that it goes last in the list" it was a good faith edit, and until someone objects there is no reason to discuss such an edit on the talk page, so I am not sure why you reverted the changes with this comment "Reverting vandalism". As the edit does not alter the information in the sentence, I am not sure why you called it vandalism.

I have put back my alteration because as I said in the edit summary unless the correct font is loaded into the browser the foreign script comes out as a line of squares. If it is to remain in the introduction it is better that it goes at the end of the sentence because otherwise it breaks up the sentence with the equivalent of this (Hindi: #### ## ##### ###### ########## #######). As there is a text box next to the introduction that narrows the width of the space in which the introduction is displayed the Hindi characters (that appear as boxes with four small numbers in them) have the effect of drawing a very thick line on the screen. Usually in names this is not a problem because the number of characters is small, but in this case 30+ characters is aesthetically the equivalent of a line so it is better that it goes at the end of the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All browsers support the text, unless someone is using an ancient version of a browser like Mosaic or some such. As it is, the more commonly used term - War of Independence should come before racist terms like "Mutiny". (Jvalant 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

War of Independence is not the more commonly used term, and the term "mutiny," which refers to soldiers or sailors rebelling against the authorities they are serving, has no discernable racist content - it is demonstrably true that the events of 1857 included a mutiny by Sepoy soldiers in the employ of the East India Company. "Indian Mutiny" is, at any rate, quite clearly the "more commonly used term," and ought to be mentioned first. As to the browser issue, I cannot say. My browser certainly shows Devanagari script properly. It does not show Chinese script correctly (it always appears as a serious of question marks "???"), but this has not stopped all articles on those subjects from giving the Chinese form rather prominently. john k 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am using Firefox (latest version) and not all character sets are downloaded for all languages by default, with the very good reason that they take up a lot of space, and for most languages it is not necessary, unless one can read the language. As I said above, the problem is the number of characters, they read like a very thick line if the font is not downloaded. If the Hindi characters are not going to be deleted (and I don't see why they should) it is better for aesthetic reasons if they go at the end of the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, it strikes me that the Hindi characters ought to be deleted. For comparable historical events see French Revolution, Russian Revolution of 1917, Unification of Germany, and so forth. None of them give the native name for the thing in the intro. Only proper names should be given the native form, I think, not events. john k 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For comparable historical events, one can refer to the Great Leap Forward too where the Chinese script is used. It is better to refer to Asian events, rather than European events as the War of Independence happened in Asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

(Jvalant 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Please explain why it is appropriate to use the Hindi name for this rebellion, but not the Russian name for the Russian revolution. I fail to see how there could possibly be an argument in favor of such a double standard. as for the Great Leap Forward, that is rather closer to being a proper name than this is. john k 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, with regards to your persistent use of the word vandalism in the edit history for goog faith edits, (last one 17:25, 30 April 2007 Jvalant (Talk | contribs | block) (59,837 bytes) (Reverting Vandalism),) please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and Misplaced Pages:Avoid the word "vandal". I am reverting to the last edit before you accused people of vandalism. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John what about WP:UE "However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name)." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip, my interpretation would be that the whole of WP:UE's requirements to give native forms is a requirement that only applies to proper names of people or places, and not to everything. We don't, after all, require the Hindi form of "History of India", for instance. The Hindi name for a historical event has precisely zero use for anyone, and can, at any rate, be easily found by anyone by clicking the interwiki link. Especially for an event like this, which has numerous different names, listing a Hindi name seems completely unnecessary. And, as noted, there's plenty of precedent for this in other articles on events occurring in non-English-speaking countries. john k 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable argument. I also think that we should restrict the names used in the first paragraph to the two main alternatives and keep the rest in the "Debate over name" section.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More people on this planet refer to these series of events as the First War of Indian Independence than the racist terms which are being used here. What you John K is engaging in is vandalism and nothing else. I shall revert it back to its original form. (Jvalant 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Philip, why has the fairly common term "Sepoy Rebellion" been removed from the intro? Why is the less common "First War of Indian Independence" listed before the more common "Indian Mutiny"? john k 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a judgement that "Indian Mutiny" is far more common than "Sepoy Rebellion" etc, so rather than have lots of names for the thing cluttering up the intro, I thoutht it best to put them all into the name explantion section. I put the "First War of Indian Independence" first as a way of causing least offense to some other editors of this page (I have things I would rather do than have an edit wa over this). My judgement on this was partially influenced by http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/indiaRising/ --Philip Baird Shearer 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, we are going around in circles. The Great Leap Forward is an Asian example and so can be used as an example. India IS an English-speaking nation, with English being one of the official languages of India. "First War of Independence" is a more common term. Most people on this planet who know about these series of event know of it as the "First War of Independence". The Aesthetics point, is a matter of opinion. It is biased not to have the Hindi wording in the first line when it is present in the Great Leap Forward. I am putting it back in. We can go around in circles if you want. (Jvalant 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Why replace did you replace Indian mutiny with sepoy rebellion? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

'coz I find the term "mutiny" racist. If you go to the page for African-American, do you see the word "nigger" used in the first paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Debate over name of conflict

Please don't delete the quotes. How are they irrelevant? (Jvalant 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

As I said in the edit histoy "What someone said at the time of the rebellion on the current name of the article is irrelevent". --Philip Baird Shearer 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by User:Hserus

Referring to your contention that newspaper citation is not valid, I am quoting here from Misplaced Pages:Libel about WHAT qualifies to be cited:

The goal of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.

I am quoting here from Source text (reached after clicking on the word sources above, about your contention that newspapers do not qualify as source text: Secondary sources are written accounts of history based upon the evidence from primary sources. For example a history book drawing upon diary and newspaper records.

Further on clicking Secondary sources we reach the definition: A secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources.

An example of a secondary source is the biography of a historical figure in which the author constructs a narrative out of a variety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, photographs, and official records. A scholarly secondary source is familiar with the existing secondary literature and seeks to engage it in terms of arguments and evidence. Most, but not all, secondary sources utilize extensive citation. Scholarly secondary sources are peer-reviewed by scholars before publication in book or article form, and books are reviewed and evaluated in the scholarly journals.

MY EDITS QUALIFY UNDER THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS. Discuss before reverting anything, dont make rules on your own simply because you know you will get support from former colonial masters and current bosses. History, howsoever good or bad, should be told from both POVs to make it NPOV. --Bobby Awasthi 08:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits should be verifiable, and should cite reputable and accurate sources of information. And primary sources, preferably from peer reviewed history publications or contemporary source material, like for example a newspaper article from the period under discussion, carry far more weight than ill informed and badly written newspaper articles. Please respect the spirit of wikipedia rather than simply quoting wikipedia regs to justify poorly unsourced and POV edits. srs 11:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to defer from your version of spirit of wikipedia. How is a contemporary British author or even a contemporary other language wikipedia (See talk history, often quoted to justify the name of this article) more qualified and a Professor of History from a reputed college in Kanpur (whose article I had read and cited) poorly unsourced and ill-informed? You mean to say that world's largest readership Hindi Newspaper is ill-informed and badly-written?--Bobby Awasthi 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's a choice between a newspaper article citing what a local professor has written, and the actual paper the professor wrote and published, which was then subject to peer review, I'd suggest that you quote the professor rather than the newspaper. Do remember that a high circulation figure doesn't always equate to journalistic quality, and that a primary source is always preferable. srs 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Awasthi with regards to your using vandalism in the edit history, did you not see the entry posted by be above: Jvalant, with regards to your persistent use of the word vandalism in the edit history for good faith edits, (last one 17:25, 30 April 2007 Jvalant (Talk | contribs | block) (59,837 bytes) (Reverting Vandalism),) please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and Misplaced Pages:Avoid the word "vandal".? --Philip Baird Shearer

I have surely overlooked Philip and I would refrain from using the words again. Also, the name reversion was not intentional.--Bobby Awasthi 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote

I would like to take on vote -

I think the title of this article should be changed to - The First War of Indian Independence, as it is officially known as that in India. According to Misplaced Pages policy, the most commonly used name should be associated with an article. In this case, in India (an English-speaking nation) it is most commonly known as "The First War of Indian Independence". I assume 24 hours should be enough to take a vote.

I vote in favor of it being changed. (Jvalant 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Things are not decided on Misplaced Pages by taking a "vote", they are taken by seeking a consensus (See Misplaced Pages:Consensus ). If this is to progress any further then it should be throught a WP:RM request with multiple options (as it might be decided to move the article back to Indian Mutiny or to some other name)

This issue has been discussed many times before See

Talk:Indian Mutiny

• Call for votes Ends 12:00 UTC September 13, 2004

Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 1

• Move
• Article name
• Article Name Revisited
• The Title
• Can we call this an insurrection?
• Another question

current archive

• #Move of name controversy and national character of rebellion
• #Request for Comment: Name of conflict
• #Name of Conflict - Is Everyone Happy?
• #Possible Compromise?
• #Request for Comments
• #Administrator blows Wiki-whistle: timeout
• #Hindi Title
• #Name clarification
• #Nomenclature
• #War of Independence
• #Aesthetics

and probably some more that I have missed

What has made you put forward this proposal given that you wrote higher up this page:

I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this thousands of times on Misplaced Pages. Just because a national Government commands that all call a city/river/war/whatever does not mean that it should be changed. See Kiev's talk page for a beautiful example. --RaiderAspect 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have cited this page as NPOV because there is a considerable amount of assertion unsupported by references, there is a lot of usage of POV terms and this talk page indicates that there are very entrenched and POV attitudes on both sides. It needs someone not involved in the current disputes to step in and make a review of the article rather than something that panders either to nationalist Indian or nationalist British attitudes. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be statements of fact and not polemic. This article fails dismally on that regard. Iain1917 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For a start the intro is clearly biased towards Indian nationalism, as it seeks to give the impression that the rebellion was widespread across India, whereas the map shows very clearly that it was highly localised. Nathanian 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, clearly a lot of work has gone into this article and no offence to the major contributors, but at the moment it is a bit of a mess. At a glance the Cawnpore section looks like it was written seperately by two people with opposing viewpoints and then dumped together without the sides being connected up (or sourced). It might even be better (hardly ideal but at least less subject to edit wars than this) to have two articles - "Indian interpretations of the 1857 Rebellion" and "Western interpretations of the 1857 Rebellion".--Jackyd101 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat tempting suggestion, especially given that I sense an edit war coming on. But really, if we get to the stage where we have to have seperate articles for different points of view, we may as well unconditionally surrender and declare that the Misplaced Pages project has failed under the weight of extremism and soapboxing. --RaiderAspect 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is bias- and peppered with often absurd hindu nationalist views, but it is wrong to even say pro-Indian because that implies the attempt to restore moghul rule is pro indian -what about the Sikhs who were loyal to the British side because they saw the restoration of Moghul rule as far worse for "India" (if such an entity really existed at the time.Mywikieditor2007 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of bull. I see this article as heavily biased on the British perspective, while sweeping the Indian POV under the carpet. Funny that the two articles proposed say "Indian POV" and "Western POV" as if the British POV is for the entire western world, while the Indian one is only confined to India. It should either be "British POV" and "Indian POV" OR "Eastern POV" and "Western POV". It does seem peppered with absurd Christian nationalist views rather than Hindu ones.

When the Japanese wish to honor their soldiers in WW-2 it creates a massive uproar in areas like China and Korea, and understandably so. Has there been even a token protest from the British Govt regarding India celebrating it as the First War of Independence? This shows they agree to the Indian POV. I don't see the Brits celebrating the 150th anniversary of "putting down the mutiny", the same way that they celebrated the WW-2 anniversary. The racism of the British posters on this article message-board is sickening to say the least. Misplaced Pages rules clearly state than an article should be known by its most common name. The most common name happens to be the First War of Independence. This is what it is called in all Indian textbooks in schools and universities. Why this British bias? It's disgusting. (Jvalant 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, I'm Italian and I can assure you that I never heard of the First Indian War of Indipendence. I just checked, and in all my history textbooks and in a couple of encyclopedias these events are always referred as "rivolta dei sepoys," which could be translated as "Sepoys revolt". One encyclopedia mentioned also the English word "mutiny." GhePeU 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were to be generous, then even if the entire population of Europe of about 660 odd million who MAY use "mutiny", it still is lesser than a billion indians, not to mention the rest of the peoples of the sub-continent. Jvalant 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all Indians taught in English and do they read the history of the period in English, or is it only a minority on the Indian Subcontinent who read and write about the rebellion in English? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an anecdote, of which i am not sure

"It was also rumoured that the British had started to issue new gunpowder cartridges that had cow and pig fat on them, which insulted both Hindus and Muslims.". 

The reason that was offensive is mainly because they had to bite the cartridges to open them, hence "eating" pig. 213.31.11.80 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all Europeans taught in English? If the Italian translation of "rivolta dei sepoys," is acceptable, then the translation of १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम should also be acceptable. As a medium of instruction, more Indians study in English than Brits. It is also the medium of instruction in all universities. Jvalant 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the intro is heavily biased towards Indian nationalism, even by normal Indian standards. I studied all my history in India, and we the textbooks called it the "Revolt of 1857", not even remotely mentioning any "Independence movement" nature of the event. Around 10 years have passed since then, and it looks like these textbooks have suffered at the hands of right-wing nationalist revisionism to a great extent. I think the impact of this nationalistic revisionism is clearly evident on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it might be that now the Indians have started using the correct terms, now that the left-wingers and imperialist bootlickers are no longer relevant. Jvalant 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets not attempt too count the number of english speakers in the world. It's not relevant in the slightest (see plenty of examples of that WP:LAME). Unless there is evidence that the majority (or at least a plurality) of scholarly sources refer to the conflict as the First War of Indian Independence, the name of this page is probably not going to change. Jvalant, you probably should review WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK. Personal attacks and blanket statements are NOT helpful. --RaiderAspect 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review it yourself. (Jvalant 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

well there seems to have been a lot of debate already . But I think you should consider this: Can the involvement of Bhadurshah, Rani Laxmibai, Tatya Tope and others really fall in the context of "rebellion". They weren't soldiers or generals in the British Army. So how can they be clubbed as rebels? Their actions cannot be termed rebellion, rather , at least in their case it was a war of independce.. The rebellion of Indian soldiers was a part of War of Independence. An attempt to overthrow a colonial power , even by soldiers in their army is more than just a small rebellion. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, I am familar with WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK. Do you feel that I have breached them?

Deepak, rebellion and war of independence are extremely similar terms. Unlike mutiny rebellion doesn't refer to soldiers who have turned against their former commanders, rather it refers to an attempt to unseat the existing government (for the sake of cross reference, see Irish Rebellion of 1798). Indian Rebellion of 1857 appears to be the most accepted academic term for the conflict, thus it is the article title. War of Indepedence and Mutiny (if only in primary sources and earlier secondary ones) are relatively common names as well, thus they are mentioned in the intro too prevent confusion. --RaiderAspect 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Mutiny- rebellion difference, but that is not my point. My point is that the mutiny itself wasn't the War of Independence(as we Indians preffer calling it) , rather it was a sub-part of it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policy is to use the most commonly used term, not one that is most commonly academically accepted. As I said, the term "Indian mutiny" is offensive and racist. Why don't you change the African-American article intro to include the word "Negro" or "nigger"? (Jvalant 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Deepak, I dont disagree with you, but the fact that it's a relatively common term for the Indian Rebellion means we really have to have it in the intro. See for instance the Second Boer War/The Boer War/Anglo-Boer War/South African War; contary to it's names there were a lot of people who were not Boers or even Anglo's involved. The fact that the mutiny was just part of the wider rebellion is addressed in the article. But BECAUSE many people and many sources know it as the Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Mutiny, we really have to mention it in the intro.

Jvalant, the existing consensus is that "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is the most widespread term. From what I can see that was confirmed by the RFC a few short months ago. Regarding your argument that Indian Mutiny is offensive, that is merely your personal opinion. Practically everything on Misplaced Pages is offensive to an indeterminate number of people. Naming the conflict Indian Mutiny, while strictly speaking inaccurate is common. Thus it will remain. Be aware that you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR.

Incidently I note that Negro is used on numerous occasions on the African American page. --RaiderAspect 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, that should've been WP:NOT#CENSORED in my edit summary. Opps --RaiderAspect 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• NA-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• NA-Class Indian history pages
• NA-importance Indian history pages
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles